{"id":1095,"date":"2020-06-15T18:17:17","date_gmt":"2020-06-15T15:17:17","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/hukuk.name\/?p=1095"},"modified":"2023-06-01T13:26:56","modified_gmt":"2023-06-01T13:26:56","slug":"bahsedilen-emsal-dosya-uzere-hesaplama-yapilmalidir-bakiye-kidem-tazminatinin-hesaplanmasi","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/hukuk.name\/index.php\/2020\/06\/15\/bahsedilen-emsal-dosya-uzere-hesaplama-yapilmalidir-bakiye-kidem-tazminatinin-hesaplanmasi\/","title":{"rendered":"Emsal dosyaya g\u00f6re hesaplama yap\u0131lmal\u0131d\u0131r"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>9. Hukuk Dairesi &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2020\/68 E. &nbsp;, &nbsp;2020\/3256 K.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>&#8220;\u0130\u00e7tihat Metni&#8221;<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><br><br>MAHKEMES\u0130 :\u0130\u015e MAHKEMES\u0130<br><br><br>Taraflar aras\u0131nda g\u00f6r\u00fclen dava sonucunda verilen karar\u0131n, temyizen incelenmesi davac\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan istenilmekle, temyiz taleplerinin s\u00fcresinde oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131. Dava dosyas\u0131 i\u00e7in Tetkik Hakimi taraf\u0131ndan d\u00fczenlenen rapor dinlendikten sonra dosya incelendi, gere\u011fi konu\u015fulup d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc:<br><br>YARGITAY KARARI<br><br>A) Davac\u0131 isteminin \u00f6zeti:<br>Davac\u0131 vekili, m\u00fcvekkilinin daval\u0131 \u015firketin g\u00fcvenlik hizmeti sundu\u011fu &#8230; A.\u015e ye ait fabrikada g\u00fcvenlik g\u00f6revlisi olarak \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, m\u00fcvekkilinin as\u0131l \u00fccretinin ayl\u0131k 200 TL, yemek yard\u0131m\u0131 ile birlikte 1250 TL oldu\u011funu, m\u00fcvekkilinin 3600 g\u00fcn ve 15 y\u0131ll\u0131k sigortal\u0131l\u0131k s\u00fcresini doldurmu\u015f oldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle&nbsp;<mark>k\u0131dem tazminat\u0131<\/mark>&nbsp;alarak i\u015f aktinin sonland\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131,&nbsp;<mark>k\u0131dem tazminat\u0131<\/mark>&nbsp;olarak 10300 TL \u00f6dendi\u011fini,&nbsp;<mark>k\u0131dem tazminat\u0131n\u0131n<\/mark>&nbsp;\u00fccret ekleri dikkate al\u0131nmaks\u0131z\u0131n hesapland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve eksik \u00f6dendi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrerek&nbsp;<mark>k\u0131dem tazminat\u0131<\/mark>&nbsp;alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 istemi\u015ftir.<br>B)Daval\u0131 cevab\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6zeti:<br>Daval\u0131 vekili, davac\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcvekkili \u015firkette 22\/05\/2005 tarihinden 31\/03\/2014 tarihine kadar g\u00fcvenlik g\u00f6revlisi olarak \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, davac\u0131n\u0131n son br\u00fct \u00fccreti olan 1071,01 TL ye son bir y\u0131lda alm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu yemek yard\u0131mlar\u0131n\u0131n ortalamas\u0131 eklenerek davac\u0131n\u0131n hesab\u0131na&nbsp;<mark>k\u0131dem tazminat\u0131n\u0131n<\/mark>&nbsp;yat\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, iddia ve taleplerin yersiz oldu\u011funu savunarak davan\u0131n reddini istemi\u015ftir.<br>C)Yerel Mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6zeti:<br>Mahkemece, toplanan delillere ve bilirki\u015fi raporuna g\u00f6re, davac\u0131n\u0131n 22\/05\/2005-31\/03\/2014 tarihleri aras\u0131nda daval\u0131 \u015firkette g\u00fcvenlik g\u00f6revlisi olarak \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131, i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin&nbsp;<mark>k\u0131dem tazminat\u0131n\u0131<\/mark>&nbsp;hak edecek \u015fekilde sona erdi\u011fi konusunda taraflar aras\u0131nda herhangi bir uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin sona ermesi nedeniyle davac\u0131ya 10280,80 TL net&nbsp;<mark>k\u0131dem tazminat\u0131<\/mark>&nbsp;\u00f6dendi\u011fi, taraflar aras\u0131nda davac\u0131n\u0131n \u00fccretine ili\u015fkin uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131,&nbsp;<mark>k\u0131dem tazminat\u0131na<\/mark>&nbsp;esas \u00fccretin tespitinde yemek yard\u0131m\u0131 ile ilgili yap\u0131lan hesab\u0131n hukuka uygun olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 noktas\u0131nda topland\u0131\u011f\u0131,&nbsp;<mark>k\u0131dem tazminat\u0131<\/mark>&nbsp;hesap pusulas\u0131nda davac\u0131n\u0131n yemek \u00fccretini y\u0131ll\u0131k 1200 TL \u015feklinde tahakkuk ettirildi\u011fi, banka hesap ekstresinde ayl\u0131k maa\u015f \u00f6demesinden ayr\u0131 bir kalem olarak ayl\u0131k periyodik aral\u0131klarla &#8220;belge kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00f6deme &#8221; ad\u0131 alt\u0131nda \u00e7e\u015fitli tutarlarda \u00f6deme yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, davac\u0131 tan\u0131\u011f\u0131, yemek fi\u015flerinin toplanarak i\u015fyerine ibraz edilmesi ile \u00f6deme yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 beyan etti\u011fi, dosya i\u00e7erisinde davac\u0131n\u0131n i\u015f s\u00f6zlemesinin sona erdi\u011fi tarihten geriye d\u00f6n\u00fck 1 y\u0131l s\u00fcreli yemek yard\u0131m\u0131 tutarlar\u0131n\u0131n tespitine imkan veren hesap haraketlerine rastlan\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, 01\/01\/2012-28\/12\/2012 tarihleri aras\u0131 hesap haraketlerinde yap\u0131lan incelemede davac\u0131ya yap\u0131lan \u00f6demeler yemek bedeli olarak tespit edilmek suretiyle bilirki\u015fi taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan&nbsp;<mark>hesaplamalar<\/mark>&nbsp;neticesi davac\u0131n\u0131n fark&nbsp;<mark>k\u0131dem tazminat\u0131<\/mark>&nbsp;alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n h\u00fck\u00fcm alt\u0131na al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esi ile davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne karar verilmi\u015ftir.<br>D)Temyiz:<br>Karar s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde davac\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmi\u015ftir.<br>E)Gerek\u00e7e:<br>1- Dosyadaki yaz\u0131lara, toplanan delillerle karar\u0131n dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131 kanuni gerektirici sebeplere g\u00f6re davac\u0131n\u0131n a\u015fa\u011f\u0131daki bentlerin kapsam\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda kalan temyiz itirazlar\u0131 yerinde de\u011fildir.<br>2- Somut uyu\u015fmazl\u0131kta, ayn\u0131 i\u015fyerinde davac\u0131 ile ayn\u0131 g\u00f6revde yani g\u00fcvenlik g\u00f6revlisi olarak \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lan ve davac\u0131n\u0131n temyiz dilek\u00e7esinde emsal olarak belirtilen &#8230; adl\u0131 i\u015f\u00e7inin, &#8230; \u0130\u015f Mahkemesi\u2019nin 2014\/972 Esas say\u0131l\u0131 dava dosyas\u0131 Uyap sistemi \u00fczerinden Dairemiz taraf\u0131ndan incelenmi\u015f olup, &#8230;\u2019\u0131n dosyas\u0131nda fesih tarihinin eldeki dosyadaki fesih tarihi ile 1 g\u00fcn ara ile farkl\u0131 oldu\u011fu, &#8230;\u2019\u0131n dosyas\u0131nda \u00e7\u0131plak net \u00fccretin 1050 TL, \u00e7\u0131plak br\u00fct \u00fccretin 1468,72 TL, yemek \u00fccretinin ise 100 TL olarak kabul edildi\u011fi, bu verilere g\u00f6re tespit edilen giydirilmi\u015f br\u00fct \u00fccret \u00fczerinden hesaplanan bakiye&nbsp;<mark>k\u0131dem tazminat\u0131<\/mark>&nbsp;alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n h\u00fck\u00fcm alt\u0131na al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131, karar\u0131n daval\u0131 temyizi \u00fczerine Dairemizin 2015\/33782 Esas say\u0131l\u0131 ilam\u0131 ile onanarak kesinle\u015fti\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r.<br>&#8230;\u2019\u0131n yukarda bahsedilen emsal dosyas\u0131nda kabul edildi\u011fi \u00fczere eldeki davac\u0131 &#8230;\u2019nin \u00e7\u0131plak net \u00fccretin 1050 TL, \u00e7\u0131plak br\u00fct \u00fccretin 1468,72 TL olarak kabul edilerek&nbsp;<mark>hesaplama<\/mark>&nbsp;yap\u0131lmal\u0131d\u0131r.<br>Ancak, &#8230;\u2019\u0131n dosyas\u0131nda her ne kadar \u00e7\u0131plak br\u00fct \u00fccrete eklenen yemek \u00fccreti 100 TL ise de eldeki dosyada h\u00fckme esas bilirki\u015fi raporunda \u00e7\u0131plak br\u00fct \u00fccrete eklenen yemek \u00fccretinin 130,82 TL\u2019d\u0131r. Eldeki dosyada 132,82 TL yemek \u00fccretine, fesih tarihi 31\/03\/2014 olmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen dosyada ba\u015fka banka kayd\u0131 mevcut olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan 2012 y\u0131l\u0131na ait banka kay\u0131tlar\u0131 \u00fczerinden&nbsp;<mark>hesaplama<\/mark>&nbsp;yap\u0131larak ula\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. 2012 y\u0131l\u0131 yemek yard\u0131m\u0131 ortalamas\u0131n\u0131n 130,82 TL iken 2014 y\u0131l\u0131nda daha d\u00fc\u015f\u00fck kabul edilemeyece\u011fi gibi daval\u0131 temyizininde olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6z \u00f6n\u00fcne al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda, eldeki dosyada yemek \u00fccreti 100 TL de\u011fil, bozma \u00f6ncesi h\u00fckme esas bilirki\u015fi raporunda oldu\u011fu gibi 130,82 TL olarak kabul edilmelidir.<br>Yukar\u0131da a\u00e7\u0131klanan \u015fekilde bakiye&nbsp;<mark>k\u0131dem tazminat\u0131<\/mark>&nbsp;yeniden hesaplanarak h\u00fck\u00fcm alt\u0131na al\u0131nmas\u0131 i\u00e7in karar\u0131n bozulmas\u0131 gerekmi\u015ftir.<br>F)SONU\u00c7:<br>Temyiz olunan karar\u0131n yukarda yaz\u0131l\u0131 sebepten dolay\u0131 BOZULMASINA, pe\u015fin al\u0131nan temyiz harc\u0131n\u0131n istek halinde ilgiliye iadesine, 27\/02\/2020 g\u00fcn\u00fc oybirli\u011fiyle karar verildi.<br><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>9. Hukuk Dairesi &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2020\/68 E. &nbsp;, &nbsp;2020\/3256 K. &#8220;\u0130\u00e7tihat Metni&#8221; MAHKEMES\u0130 :\u0130\u015e MAHKEMES\u0130 Taraflar aras\u0131nda g\u00f6r\u00fclen dava sonucunda verilen karar\u0131n, temyizen incelenmesi davac\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan istenilmekle, temyiz taleplerinin s\u00fcresinde oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131. Dava dosyas\u0131 i\u00e7in Tetkik Hakimi taraf\u0131ndan d\u00fczenlenen rapor dinlendikten sonra dosya incelendi, gere\u011fi konu\u015fulup d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc: YARGITAY KARARI A) Davac\u0131 isteminin \u00f6zeti:Davac\u0131 vekili, m\u00fcvekkilinin daval\u0131 [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1969,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[15],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1095","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-is-hukuku"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/hukuk.name\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1095","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/hukuk.name\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/hukuk.name\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hukuk.name\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hukuk.name\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1095"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/hukuk.name\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1095\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2002,"href":"https:\/\/hukuk.name\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1095\/revisions\/2002"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hukuk.name\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1969"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/hukuk.name\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1095"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hukuk.name\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1095"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hukuk.name\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1095"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}